<p>Classical means just that classic, as in before it was revamped. Its hard to explain such a top effectively and is thus the reason i recommend the book. The book is 500 pages long and I cant sum that up on a internet forum, which again is the reason I recommend reading it.</p>
<p>First of all you need to know that fascism has never properly been defined. So you using it as saying that “fascism relies on leaders who can effectively control the population” is all in all wrong.</p>
<p>You mention that the core of liberalism rests on the individual or individualism. Which is true, but only when we refer to classical liberalism or 20th century liberalism. The same is true that classical liberalism opposes totalitarianism and collectivism, but modern social liberalism embraces it. </p>
<p>Now if we look at a basic definition of fascism from dictionary.com</p>
<p>“(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>“A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”</p>
<p>We can see that social liberalism actually can fall within these two definitions quite nicely, as can neo-conservatism but conservatism, republicanism or libertarianism cannot. If we look at definition #2. It states “A system of government marked by centralization of authority” which falls directly inline with totalitarianism and collectivism. Severity of fascism depends on how much you take from its definition. I never said Fascism would be as if it were under Mussolini, I believe it will is more subtle and happy type of fascism that people have accepted slowly. fascism also depending on definition does not need a dictator, most would agree that fascism is underway under Bush, but he is not a dictator. </p>
<p>Now lets look at the second part of the defiition “stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.” Social Liberalism supports all of these. Nobody loves to control the economy and society than a social liberal. Liberals and progressives alike are also in favor of “suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship” Both Clinton’s, Gore, Obama and the democratic congress currently all love these tactics, its blatantly clear. All candidates mentioned above also are all in favor of “a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.” All candidates support a strong sense of nationalism for their own means and all support the continuation of racism due to social programs. and if you dont belive that I dare you to read</p>
<p>Steele, Shelby (2006-05-02). White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-060-57862-9.</p>